I uploaded a doc "Sitcom Response #3" a few days ago, wondering when I should be receiving some commentary.

Rules to apply with IRAC:

Rule torts are injuries done to a person's body or reputation property or business relationships remedied by money damages that are 1 compensatory to reimburse the plaintiff for the actual injury or loss and 2 punitive to punish serious conduct and to deter similar conduct.

Rule assault is an intentional act that one, causes a reasonable fear or apprehension of. 2, immediate physical harm

Rule a threat not perceived is not assault such as pointing a gun behind someone's back

Rule a threat to do future harm is not assault because it is not immediate

Rule battery is a harmful or offensive touching a fatal stabbing or sexually motivated caress are both batteries as long as the defendant intended to put the action in motion

Rule affirmative defenses may excuse batteries such as self defense or consent to be hit in a sport such as boxing or football

Rule defamation is words that harm another's reputation and can be liable when fixed in writing or media or can be slander when heard live if the plaintiff can show the statement is: one false and two factual and three harms a reputation and four is published meaning a third party reads or hears it and five causes the plaintiff economic loss

Rule there is no requirement that the defamer intended to lie or to act with ill will innocence's therefor is not a defense reporter and business people defame when they pass a long false hoods given to them by others

There is no other information given to me by the professor, the instructions for this problem is to read and understand the "sitcom response" and then apply one of the rules i attached above using the IRAC structure. Find the Issue in the response, then state the appropriate Rule then Apply the Rule to the issue and then Conclude the response.

Hi,

A new client of ours, Cortese Conservation, has requested we sell to it on 60-day credit terms.I am concerned about extending credit.A terminated employee has publicly leveled serious charges of malfeasance against the company.The company responded to the employee's accusations and followed it up with a defamation lawsuit against her.But now she has countersued with her own defamation suit, seeking $50 million.With this reputational damage and risk of paying a judgment, Cortese may become insolvent. We need to know if these legal quarrels have merit before we ship product to Cortese.

Cortese, as you may know, restores art work, including museum-grade paintings.Its CEO, Cesar Cortese, the terminated employee was one of its restorers, Dr. Genevieve Porter.she told the online edition of the National Fine Arts Journal that the company does "shoddy work."After she was fired, she told the NFAJ that "that the company restored a noted classic Dutch painting, 'The Idyll', using a lead white pigment mixed with lead-tin yellow instead of a heat-modified oil, which she said was "completely wrong".Cortese alleges these statements defamed it.

In a follow up article, Cesar Cortese was interviewed by NFAJ.He said Dr. Porter was terminated for being a "poor performer".Indeed, he asserted all materials Cortese uses are professionally proper and that Dr. Porter's opinions are her own and "unworthy of credence," because she is just "a disgruntled employee" who was let go for "submitting numerous appraisal reports ." He said her reports contained serious factual errors, including the year "The Idyll" was painted and whether chalk should be used as an impasto extender in the oil paintings of that era.The NFAJ wrote that it had sought to confirm Porter's accusations by seeking comment from several art restoration experts, but none responded. Porter's lawsuit names both Cortese Conservation, Cesar Cortese, and the NFAJ as defendants.

Do any of these claims and counter claims have any chance of success?Thoughts?

Thanks.